[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Thin tape decay
I’m not sure if this qualifies as hard data or anecdotal evidence, but
IASA’s “Task Force to establish selection criteria…” suggests the
following:
“only standard play tapes open reel tapes (SP, 52 mm total thickness)
should be trusted
to be mechanically stable. Long play tapes (LP, 35 mm thickness), double
play tapes (DP, 26 mm
thickness) and the rarely used triple play tapes (TP, 18 mm thickness) are
vulnerable at increasing
degree. Audio cassette tapes are mechanically even more vulnerable: C 60, C
90 and C 120
cassettes have a thickness of 18, 12 and 9 mm respectively”
(By the way, the caliper measure of a 1.5 mil base plus binder, oxide and
backing layers is ~52 mm)
Best,
Danny
Daniel Sbardella
The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
40 Lincoln Center Plaza
New York, NY 10023
212.870.1609
Marcos Sueiro Bal
<mls2137@COLUMBIA
.EDU> To
Sent by: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Association for cc
Recorded Sound
Discussion List Subject
<ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx [ARSCLIST] Thin tape decay
>
08/02/2006 10:24
AM
Please respond to
Association for
Recorded Sound
Discussion List
<ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx
>
Greetings
Was wondering whether anyone on the list knows of any hard data out there
(or even substantial anecdotal evidence) that shows that thinner tape
decays
faster, and to what kind of physical decay thin tape is most susceptible as
time goes: cupping/curling, brittleness, shedding, etc. And even (and I
know
this is asking much) whether, say, 0.5 mil is "twice as bad" as 1 mil, or
"four times as bad", etc. This is not playback-related; rather, picture two
reels of the same formulation but different thicknesses, sitting side by
side for a few years.
Will appreciate any information.
Thanks much
Marcos Sueiro